verificare forse sbrigativamente i margini di sicurezza rispetto ad eventi naturali magari ‘in linea’ con il passato storico, ma senza investigare a fondo eventi più rari e ritenuti fuori dai limiti di progetto.
E’ ora ragionevole immaginare un futuro di progettazione e verifiche di sicurezza in cui i reattori nucleari vengano visti in modo integrato a livello di centrale, e prevedere che molta più tecnologia e conoscenza vengano sfruttate per tener conto anche di eventi estremi capaci di avere impatti al di là dei limiti di progetto così come oggi definiti. Una evoluzione dei simulatori quindi dovrà muoversi verso la considerazione ‘integrata’ delle centrali e dell’ambiente circostante, sia nel senso ‘classico’ della stima accurata dei possibili danni che i rilasci di radioattività possono provocare ad ambiente e popolazioni circostanti, sia nel senso di valutare al meglio gli effetti degli eventi naturali estremi (terremoti, tsunami, inondazioni, uragani e tornado…) sia sul ‘cuore’ della centrale (sistema reattore e suo contenimento) che su quelle parti talvolta ritenute meno critiche (reti elettriche, sistemi secondari, pozzi termici) la cui messa fuori uso (specialmente se ‘multipla’) può risultare altrettanto fatale che un ‘progettato’ incidente di rottura nel circuito primario di raffreddamento.
7 Riferimenti bibliografici
1. IAEA Mission Report. “IAEA international fact finding expert mission of the Fukushima Dai-‐ichi NPP accident following the great east Japan earthquake and tsunami”. June 2011.
2. Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters, Governement of Japan. “Additional Report of the Japanese Government to the IAEA: The accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations”. II report, September 2011.
3. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Recommendations for enhancing reactor safety in the 21th century. The near-‐term task force review of insights from the Fukushima Dai-‐ichi accident”. July 2011.
4. Conclusioni del Consiglio Europeo 24/25 marzo, EUCO 10/11 Punto 31. 5. ENSREG. “Declararion of ENSREG, Annex I: EU Stress Tests specification”
6. ENSREG Stress test peer review board. “Peer review report, stress tests performed on European nuclear power plants”. April 2012
7. US NRC “Accident Source Terms for Light Water Nuclear Power Plants”, NUREG 1465,1995
8. David I. Chanin, Mary L. Young, “Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, User’s Guide” Sandia Report SAND97-‐0594, 1997
9. J. J. DiNunno et. Al., “Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites”, US NRC TID-‐ 14844, 1962
10. CSNI NEA, “Source Term Assessment, Containment Atmosphere Control Systems and Accident Sequences”, 1987
11. Bennet, SANDIA, “MACCS2 example input data for SURRY NPP”, 1986
12. US NRC, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms For Evaluating Design Basis Accidents At Nuclear Power Reactors”, Regulatory Guide 1.183, 2000
13. FZK Karlsruhe (now KIT) “The Rodos System”, Brochure, 2005 14. Dave Lochbaum, "Le lezioni di Fukushima" (29 marzo 2011)
15. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, "Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Design", IAEA Safety Standards Series No. NS-‐R-‐1, IAEA, Vienna (2000).
115
16. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, "Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Operation", IAEA Safety Standards Series No. NS-‐R-‐2, IAEA, Vienna (2000).
17. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, "Safety Assessment for Facilities and Activities", IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 4, IAEA, Vienna (2009).
18. Accordo di programma ENEA-‐MSE: tema di ricerca "Nuovo nucleare da fissione":
19. "Caratteristiche funzionali e tecniche dei futuri simulatori ingegneristici", NNFISS -‐ LP2 -‐ 057, Settembre 2011
20. A. Cammi et al. An object-‐oriented approach to simulation of IRIS dynamic response. Progress in Nuclear Energy 53 (2011) 48-‐58.
21. S. Bortot, A. Cammi, S. Lorenzi, R. Ponciroli. Modeling Approaches for Dynamic Analyses of Innovative SMRs Compact Steam Generators Transaction of the American Nuclear Society, Embedded Topical Meeting of the ANS Winter Meeting “1st Annual ANS SMR 2011 Conference”, Washington, DC, USA
22. R. Ponciroli, S. Bortot, S. Lorenzi, A. Cammi. Development of an Object-‐Oriented Dynamics simulator for a LFR DEMO. International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP ‘12), Chicago, USA, American Nuclear Society (CD-‐ROM)
23. GIF DOE-‐GIF, 2002. A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. Technical Report GIF-‐002-‐00, GIF.
24. IEA/NEA, 2010. Technology Roadmaps Nuclear Energy, 2010 Edition. International Energy Agency and OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, 2010.
25. Bouchard, J and Bennet, R. A new generation of nuclear to lead the way. Energy Focus, Spring 2009 26. Alemberti A. et al. “From ELSY to LEADER”. Transaction of European Nuclear Conference ENC 2010,
Barcellona, June 2010.
27. L. Mansani, “System Configuration for LFR”, Proceedings of the 2nd HeLiMnet International Workshop: Liquid Metal Fast Reactors: Issues and Synergies, Aix-‐en-‐Provence, France, October 4-‐7, 2011.
28. D. De Bruyn et al. “MYRRHA, the Multi-‐purpose Hybrid Research Reactor for High-‐tech Applications”. Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants, ICAPP 2011, Nice, France, May 2-‐5, 2011.
29. P. Baeten “Myrrha, a flexible fast spectrum irradiation facility”, Proceedings of the 2nd HeLiMnet International Workshop: Liquid Metal Fast Reactors: Issues and Synergies, Aix-‐en-‐Provence, France, October 4-‐7, 2011.
30. Rapporto di Sicurezza del Reattore TRIGA-‐RC1 dell’ENEA
31. Carlo Innarella. Seminario “ Il Modello Dinamico del Reattore Nucleare 32. TRIGA-‐RC1 dell’ENEA “. ENEA C.R.CASACCIA , Dicembre 2011
33. Carlo Innarella . Il modello del reattore BWR4 di Caorso. Implementazione su calcolatore analogico. Rapp. Tecnico Anno 1986
34. A. Borio di Tigliole et al.“Benchmark evaluation of reactor critical parameters and neutron fluxes distribution at zero power for the TRIGA Mark II reactor of the University of Pavia using the Monte Carlo code MCNP”, (2010) Progress in Nuclear Energy 52(5), pp. 494 – 502.
35. A. Borio di Tigliole et al. “Preliminary Triga Fuel Burn-‐up evaluation by means of Monte Carlo code and computation based on total energy released during reactor operation”. PHYSOR 2012 –
116
Advances in Reactor Physics – Linking Research, Industry, and Education, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA, April 15-‐20, 2012
36. Andrea Fusar Poli. “Modelling and Control of TRIGA Mark II Reactor”. Tesi di Laurea Specialistica Politecnico di Milano, 2008/2009.
37. R. Ponciroli. “Modellistica orientate agli oggetti del reattore TRIGA MARK II dell’università di Pavia”. Tesi di Laurea Specialistica Politecnico di Milano, 2009/2010.
38. A. Peršič, M. Ravnik, S. Slavič, T. Žagar. “TRIGLAV AProgram Package for Research Reactor Calculations”. TRIGLAV Program Manual, “Jožef Stefan Institute” Reactor Physics Division, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
39. E. Negrenti, F. D’Auria “Progettazione simulatori incidentali per sistemi integrati di gestione di incidenti nucleari “ NNFISS – LP2 095 ENEA 2012
40. Modelica Association web site http://www.modelica.org/.
41. Fritzson, P. Principles of Object-‐Oriented Modeling and Simulation with Modelica 2.1, Wiley-‐IEEE Press, 2004.
42. Mattsson, S.E., Elmqvist, H., Otter, M. Physical system modeling with Modelica. Control Engineering Practice, 6, 501-‐510, 1998.
43. OpenModelica Project, http://www.openmodelica.org/ 44. Dymola User’s Manual. Dynasym AB.
45. MathModelica User’s Manual. Mathcore Engineering AB.
46. F. Casella, A. Leva. Modelica open library for power plant simulation: design and experimental validation Proceedings of Modelica Conference 2003, Linköping, Sweden, Nov. 3‒4 (2003), pp. 41‒ 50
47. F. Casella, A. Leva. Modelling of thermo-‐hydraulic power generation processes using modelica Mathematical and Computer Modeling of Dynamical Systems, 12 (1) (2006), pp. 19‒33
48. http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/smr/index.htm 49. http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/smr/fact_sheet.pdf 50. http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2062201 51. http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloads/Technology/meetings/2011-‐Jul-‐4-‐8-‐ANRT-‐ WS/3_USA_mPOWER_BABCOCK_DELee.pdf 52. http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/ 53. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/mpower.html 54. http://www.gen4energy.com/ 55. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/hyperion.html 56. http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=132&storyCode=2054283
57. Brian S. Triplett, Eric P. Loewen, Brett J. Dooies, "PRISM: A Competitive Small Modular Sodium-‐ Cooled Reactor", Nuclear Technology / Volume 178 / Number 2 / Pages 186-‐200 May 2012
58. http://www.powermag.com/nuclear/PRISM-‐A-‐Promising-‐Near-‐Term-‐Reactor-‐Option_3887.html 59. http://www.usnuclearenergy.org/PDF_Library/_GE_Hitachi%20_advanced_Recycling_Center_GNE
P.pdf
117
61. David I. Chanin, Mary L. Young, “Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, User’s Guide” Sandia Report SAND97-‐0594, 1997
62. J. J. DiNunno et. Al., “Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites”, US NRC TID-‐ 14844, 1962
63. CSNI NEA, “Source Term Assessment, Containment Atmosphere Control Systems and Accident Sequences”, 1987
64. Bennet, SANDIA, “MACCS2 example input data for SURRY NPP”, 1986
65. US NRC, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms For Evaluating Design Basis Accidents At Nuclear Power Reactors”, Regulatory Guide 1.183, 2000
66. FZK Karlsruhe (now KIT) “The Rodos System”, Brochure, 2005
67. A. Annunziato -‐ THE TSUNAMI ASSESSMENT MODELLING SYSTEM BY THE JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE European Commission -‐ Joint Research Centre Via Fermi 1, 21020 Ispra, Italy
68. ENSERG “Peer Review Report – Stress tests performed on European Nuclear Power Plants”. May 2012
69. IEEE Xplore -‐ Modeling the 2011 Tohoku-‐oki tsunami and its impacts on Hawaii
70. S. Tinti, I. Gavagni, A. Piatanesi “A finite-element numerical approach for modeling tsunamis” http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/ 4189
118